click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
, congressman from california. they both gave thifr interpretations. peter king said petraeus said he didn't know who are on when the cia intelligence talking points were edited, and shift said that petraeus said that the reason they were edited was to protect classified information. now, i talked to a former cia counterintelligence official today who said that both of those aassessessments can't rea live in the same word, so maybe there's some misinterpretation of what petraeus said. you can't believe on the one hand petraeus didn't know why the talking points were edited and on the other he had a perfectly good explanation for why the points were edited. make we'll get more on that. i think that we have a deeper understanding here after today about why david petraeus so badly want upped to come out and set the record straight. he didn't want on record that cia intelligence was bad and that was the reason. so that "wall street journal" report we saw yesterday talking about petraeus in his final days at the cia really wanting to come out and talk publicly. we have a greater sense of why th
, california striking down their three-strikes law. that says let's not have nonviolent drug offenders go away to jail for a long time. judges and police say this is a losing battle. let's move towards treatment and decriminalization and treat it like alcohol rather than prohibition and criminalization. we have a mexican president saying, hey, let's look at a different way to treat this thing. let's talk about what he recently said. in favor of opening a new debate in the strategy in the way we fight drug traffickings. it's clear after several decades we have more drug consumption, drug use, drug trafficking. things are not working. a change in the drug policy would have a massive impact on the economy and on crime in both north america and throughout south america, and would lead the way and open the path toward a more humane immigration policy and people in america accepting them. >> i think you're right. it's been interesting. as things have moved politically in terms of the war on drugs, we've also, of course, seen after this election potential movement on comprehensive immigration reform.
't duplicate that with the best hollywood budget. i grew up in l.a. and moved to northern california and got a job logging and started to look around. eventually tv people came up there, and i was working behind the camera. the site was hard to find. dude, you should be in front of the camera. >> how many encounterers have had? >> encounters? dozens. like when they're around, you can hear them and smell them. i haven't smelled that much, but i've seen them a handful of times. i had one daylight sighting, i saw half lean out behind the tree for a half second and it was gone. >> if you're like me, i put myself in the skeptic category, although i want to believe and i would love to see evidence myself of bigfoot. i'm into it. but on the one hand you think, god, there's so many sightings and so many different continents and countries and states. how can all of those people be wrong or lying? on the other hand, where's the body? i want to see the body. what is your most conclusive evidence to me for why sasquatch exists? >> there's a big dna study going on right now. they mapped the genome, and t
those. california reformed its three strikes law which had sent millions of monoviol nonviolent users to jails for decades. it's dawning on voters, judges cops, politicians that imprisoning people doesn't work. after all the billions spent and the millions of arrests and incarcerated people, drugs remain cheap, potent and easily purchased and the financial and spiritual cost of imprisoning more people than any other nation in the world is not sustainable. our next guest wrote a great new york magazine cover story about the future of the war on druks titled "the truce on drugs." we can only hope. benjamin wallace wells, ho aw a you, sir? >> i'm great. >> i'm thrilled by the movement away from prohibition. not because i want to get high. not because there's people who want to get high and can't because it's illegal, that's certainly not the case. but because it does not work when we treat marijuana differently from alcohol. is that correct? >> i think that is correct. one of the things you've seen just in the last five years is a movement of the position that the war on drugs has failed
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)